IS THE CLOCK ABOVE ALIVE? CAN WE BREAK INTO PIECES WITHOUT HURTING TIME?
Force, Space/Extension : Ethics and Existence
Marvin E. Kirsh 1
Kirsh2152000@yahoo.com
1 California State University Los Angeles Department of Philosophy
Abstract
Individual uniqueness is implied with the use of the single term “individual”; the phrase “individual uniqueness” is circular and redundant-it’s usefulness restricted to description of perception/contrast in the first, immediate, sense, only-socially. It can be intuitively expanded, for scientific purposes, to imply a world comprised of singularities only, singular particulars, and in the same (second) sense the term the phrase “singular world” is also circular and redundant-reducible to the single word “world”
In this presentation, in order to demonstrate the apriori entailment of the existence of force from existence, the equally meaning terms and phrases “individual uniqueness”, “singular world”, “individual”, “unique”, “world” will be employed in indirect argument to demonstrate a contradiction. It is suggested that ambiguity resulting from circular, and redundant phrasing in language usage, are ultimately responsible for controversary in the formation of ethical values, and extremes that are functionally able to exceed allowable limits of nature.
Discussion
Consider a single thing to exist. One might raise the question, in order to state the existence of this single thing, can one assume that’s its’ nature, that is the nature of being “single”, that it must avoid itself, and that all of its’ constituent components, by virtue of the uniqueness of the initial entity also must avoid themselves, such that everything about the thing is unique, i.e. it cannot contain pluralities, other than those of lingual/social description whose existence is contingent on redundancy of meaning, and deterioration of meaning in the process of reduction to exact individual correspondences of any kind. In this case, the only case (as pluralities imply redundancy and a lack of correlation (are unequal, and “singularities”, i.e. “particular singularities” are unequal to one another) , unequalness is a property of everything. Assume, for argument, that any two singular things, might recombine to a new singular thing. Recombination cannot be said to occur unless the two original things are unequal. To say that they exist and are unequal implies that they occupy space-are two dimensional, and that their recombination product also occupies space, i.e. has a specific volume, shape, location)set of coordinates defined from a given perspective, that define all the space that the entity occupies. Its’ coordinate can overlap with the coordinates of another entity as easily and equally as language possesses redundancies and lack of correspondences, but cannot equal exactly the parameters of the space (defined from the same perspective employed to define the original entity or recombinant entity)of another entity. One, is thus enabled to claim, in a visa versa manner, that in order for parameters of space to exist, they must not only ( with the assumption of the existence of parameters of space to entail singularity), entails the existence of unique entities (i.e. the term “empty space” is redundant and has no correspondences in reality), but that if no two entities are equal that they also occupy unequal spaces-i.e that force exists such that particulars and the particulars of which they are constituted (of recombination, or existing alone as supposed basic unities) remain separate spatially-or are inclined to spatially avoid one another as an apriori fact of their being. In contradiction if one assumes that a physical force is not entailed by the existence of entities, one might then infer that within the most complex of potential entities, or recombinant products, that at some level at least one component must be able to exactly overlap-occupy the space of another to called equal to it, as all that can define the simplest particle is the peculiar space that it occupies. Employing the same chain of reason, a recombinant entity or any entity could not exist without the same apriori force existing in all of the parts that birthed it as well as the whole , as a recombination event that is defined as the uniting of unequals could not be said to have occurred.
Mathematically 1 is unique to 2, 3 , 4 etc as they are to each other. In the above model they would be defined to repel each other. The fraction 1.2345 could then occupy no different a real space than the number one and could be named as easily with a whole number, in that numbers themselves only denote differences. That it is possible to extrapolate from a conceptual “number” (e.g. as a unique) to a physical force is it not true that energy is required for the mind to function, and yet if the parts and biochemistry of the mind are of nothing but differences and contrasts involving lengths in its construction, form and genetics that are passed forwards by recombination from the past, and conceptualization is the single matter of relation and self relation by comparison and distances, and of comparison with external world which is construed of distances, volumes, shapes, might not mathematical numbers be the perceptual progeny of immunological differences(i.e. 1 =1(second sense(?) perception), 1≠2(first sense(?) perception)….(1=1) ≠ (1=2) etc.) ascribed to the same force in discussion. Though we have a word for same (1=1) reduces to incoherency, non correspondence and refers only to socially appropriate lingual association, and a force of differences, an acquired, natural, and ubiquitously existing self knowledge that emerges from an entailed apriori force and space instinctively entailed from existence itself.
It is this primordial force existing, of which exist the same kind of redundancies as described for “individual”, “world” verses “individual difference”, “plurality” emerge in physics theory assembly and definition of forces and particles-i.e. into dualistic interpretations involving the redundant description of separate time and space verses “time” or “space” or “force”: as all are inherently equal and appropriate for a second sense/perception scientific comprehension, but hardly suitable for ordinary social expression and communication. It is also of this distinction (between linguistic redundancy and the actually singular ) that scholarly constructions fail at the practical level to resolve contemporary world problems, fail to determine solid ethical values; and wherein scientific endeavors might newly extend from a practice of best fit, to deeper comprehension involving a more naturally understood and better completeness in terms of singularly existing ratios that are peculiar to specific singularities(or kinds). The existing dualism of distinct physical science related elements of both time and space (rather than a monism that might be referred to as either time, or space, or force) ultimately permit an intuitively acceptable application of force to elements (especially basic elements that emerge from atomic and evolutionary/genetic theory) of nature without awareness. It is the element of time in these cases that is the actual target of change, especially if actions involve supposed elements, of theory, that are not amenable to direct empirical witness, experience and validation(e.g. components (subatomic physical particles) of the atom, elements of genetic evolution).
References
Kirsh, Marvin, E., “Uniqueness and Self Belonging in Nature”, 2007, (in review: Ludas Vitalis).
Kirsh, Marvin, E., “Form Generates Form: Time As a Second Order Variable From Indecision Between Heisenberg Uncertainty and Einstein Legality”, 2007, (in review: Ludas Vitalis).
Kirsh, Marvin, E., “Incompleteness and the Romance With Science”, 2007, (in review: Sorites).
Kirsh, Marvin, E., “A Physical Monism: Time As the Sole Component of the World”, 2007, (in review: Philosophy and Physics).
Russell, Bertrand, “My Philosophical Development”, 1959, Simon and Schuster NYC.
Russell, Bertrand , “The Problems of Philosophy”, 1997, Oxford university Press.
Bertrand, Whitehead, Alfred North, “Principia Mathematica”, 2002, second edition
Cambridge University Press.
Quine, W. V., "Indeterminacy of Translation Again", The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 84, No. 1, Jan. 1987.